What Is a Catholic Feminist?

Many years ago, my husband spent part of each week traveling; and even when he was home, he was so blitzed with jet lag that we hardly saw him. Life was pretty awful.

What made it worse was that our landlord was a very old fashioned guy. He was sweet, kind, and generous to a fault—but he had a hard time accepting that I, a woman, was the one who handled business matters at home. I was the one who paid the rent, wrote the checks, knew how much water we used, arranged for parking, mowed the lawn, and so on. But he always insisted on waiting until my husband got home before he would discuss any of these things with us.

It was frustrating, but I didn’t hold it against him—he meant no harm, and we liked each other; he was just too old to change his thinking.

At the time, I was forcing myself to live at least the exterior life of a very traditional wife and mother: long skirts in any weather, long hair that didn’t suit me, and all the trappings of an anti-feminist. I was young, and just trying to figure out who I was. So it was easiest to just find an admirable model and imitate it for all I was worth.

Still, even as I dutifully ironed and dusted, the landlord’s attitude rankled. I grumbled, “What if the whole world was like him? What if I had to argue with the auto parts clerk to buy a headlight bulb, even though I was the one replacing it? What if the bank required me to get my husband’s permission for this and that? And what if I wore skirts because I’d be shunned if I didn’t, and not because I felt like wearing them?”

My husband says I’m a feminist. I know many liberal feminists would recoil in horror at that assessment: After all, I have all these kids, and I’m a member in good standing with that horrible old misogynistic Church, with its oppressive rules about reproduction and obedience. I’m pro-life and wholeheartedly follow the Magisterium’s teaching on the male priesthood and contraception, and try to make the Blessed Virgin my model.

So what makes me a feminist? Some would say that all faithful Catholics are feminists, because the Church is the most pro-woman organization around: The Church honors and values the particular gifts of women, and demands that men treat women with dignity and even a little bit of fear. John Paul II famously called himself a “feminist pope”; and in practical terms, the Church has probably done more for the physical well-being of women around the world than any other charitable organization.

Catholics who are feminists recognize that, while so many true wrongs have been righted in the last 50 years, the poor treatment of women in America has just been displaced, not eradicated. So now, instead of corsets and disenfranchisement, we have widespread pornography, abortion, and abandonment of every kind. We have gained some necessary ground, but lost so much else that is valuable in the process. Most of my Catholic friends see the world this way.

But are all faithful Catholics feminists?

I think that definition is far too broad. Some women just fall naturally into their roles, and don’t think about it at all. Maybe, as off-putting as it sounds, a feminist is always someone who feels some distress or dissatisfaction with the way women are treated—someone who agitates for change.

What change would I like to see? From the secular world: Stop thinking of women as sex objects; but at the same time, stop thinking of women as identical to men. Stop treating fertility like a disease; but stop pretending that women can be full-time mothers and full-time careerists. Stop blaming men for everything that is wrong with the world. It’s tiresome and counterproductive.

From my fellow Catholics: Stop thinking of women as objects who are here to save you from personal sexual sin; and stop thinking of women as intellectually inferior to men. Stop assuming that all women are meant to bear child after child no matter what; and stop pretending that if women just tried a little harder, men would be happy all the time. Stop blaming women for everything that is wrong with the Church. It’s cowardly and childish.

That’s for starters.

But feminism is not all about complaining and protesting. What I would like most of all is for women to ask themselves honestly, without worrying about history or politics, “What is it that I, as a woman, can do especially well? How can I help other women do what they do well?”

So, what do you think? Am I a feminist? Are you? Should we just scrap this word altogether, or can we rehabilitate it? Is there a better word?

Comments

I especially liked: ‘Catholics who are feminists recognize that, while so many true wrongs have been righted in the last 50 years, the poor treatment of women in America has just been displaced, not eradicated. So now, instead of corsets and disenfranchisement, we have widespread pornography, abortion, and abandonment of every kind. We have gained some necessary ground, but lost so much else that is valuable in the process.’

This ‘brave new world’ still has a long way to go before we right those ‘true wrongs.’ Yes, more people in the world are becoming more aware of these issues, but not enough is being done. The things ‘of this world’ has been given so much precedence in society, everything is all about the “I”; “me” and “my”… a consequence of modernism. I remember hearing on the news a month ago that they are planning to make the morning after pills free, in order to alleviate the financial burden of birth control and to prevent the economical and social “burden” of early adolescent pregnancy. The needs ‘of this world’ is given way too much emphasis and it’s true what the article says, in the attempt to restore “goodness” and “order” so much is being lost. In this world and time: chastity, modesty and purity are becoming so alien to women. If we take on the title: ‘feminist catholic,’ we need to know exactly why we are this person because let’s face it “I don’t know” is just not enough in a post-modern Australia. But at the same time and I think more importantly, we need to be humble to the “other” (non-Catholic; misogynist) in righting these wrongs. That is if we are to sincerely and wholeheartedly do it in Christ’s name. Also, being lukewarm about these issues won’t cut it. We really need to know WHO we are, and not only that but know WHY we are what we are. Exactly.

You know as well as I do that more has to be done in order to prevent the increasingly visible transition into Aldous Huxley’s reality; the ‘Brave New World.’ While there is more consciousness regarding humankinds faults and weakness, doesn’t it still seem like we ARE living in a world where beliefs and values are becoming too personal and malleable? Masses are asking themselves one question and one question only: ‘What’s in it for ME?’ If people don’t start questioning themselves then this ‘nightmare of swarming indistinguishable sameness’ won’t end. Judgment day shouldn’t be a day of fear rather a day of celebration. But the former is more prevalent, why? Because people know that after years of modern society playing God (including each individual selfishly and primarily concerned with themselves) this generation doesn’t stand a chance. At the middle of last year it was estimated that we had a population of approximately 6,852,472,823. An overwhelmingly huge percentage of those people are conscious of the global turmoil we are in, less would be willing to admit that that its mankind’s sin and selfishness that did this… and sadly only a mere handful would actually do something about it.
‘Oh brave new world, that has such people in it.’

Posted by Mary Rose on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 10:56 AM (EST):

@Vegas - Who is your comment addressed to?

Posted by Vegas on Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 10:48 AM (EST):

I love how you tthink the world needs to change to make you happy. Suck it up, Lady. Not everyone walks to the beat of your drum. So what if the Old Timer will only speak when your husband is around. Every known any Real Orthodox Jews? They need your make-over too I suspect. Be yourself and focus on youhink yourself vs. Every single slight you may think you may be receiving.
Vegas

Posted by AME on Thursday, Jun 9, 2011 9:03 PM (EST):

Pro-life Catholic women FTW! Virgin Mary, St. Edith Stein, and Women for the Third Millenium!

Posted by disagree on Monday, Jun 6, 2011 5:39 PM (EST):

I disagree!!! I think women can be full time career persons and full time mothers. I have my own business and my husband is a police officer. We share all household duties equally and all child rearing. My husband feels we both mad the child we can both raise the child and i whole heartedly agree!!!!! We are different parents but equally good in our own ways!!!

Posted by Pat on Monday, Jun 6, 2011 5:16 PM (EST):

@Amy, rock on sister. You are right. The Church has many, many leadership roles for women. To those who disagree, I say, stop being angry and start having fun.

Posted by Amy M. on Sunday, Jun 5, 2011 6:50 AM (EST):

@Catherine - “Where did Mrs. Fisher get the idea that the Catholic church is the most pro-women organization around?? Many, many details aside, it is clear that in an organization that values women SO LITTLE that it does not even permit them to be leaders within the organization itself, for no reason other than some vague nonsense about “tradition” or “well, the apostles were all men, so…. yea,” that feminist women who were raised Catholic still have a long way to go in an attempt to reconcile the two.” First of all, Catherine, the Catholic Church is not an “institution” - it is the Church established by Christ and it is the body of Christ. I think there are many Catholic women around like Mrs. Fisher who feel as she does that the Catholic Church is pro women. “Authentic” Catholic women do not need to be ordained priests to feel validated. Jesus called men to the priesthood and it is not some sort of unimportant minor detail. You sound just like the angry women (women religious I understand for the most part)I see outside of churches with your signs demanding ordination of women. All the liberal women religious orders are literally dying off and all of the traditional religious orders that know what real femininity is and do not feel threatened by wearing a habit are bursting with vocations. There are many women in leadership within the Church but they are not an angry mob seeking “equality”. True femininity is recognizing the differences between men and women and embracing our differences in service. When pride, anger and resentment enter our heart we have little to give to others and to God because we have lost our focus. It is not about us but about Him. Yes, Him! Instead of embracing humility and being authentically feminine you seek to embrace some sort of androgynous image. That is not authentic femininity but speaks to a convoluted image of femininity.

Posted by Catherine on Friday, Jun 3, 2011 4:57 PM (EST):

Where did Mrs. Fisher get the idea that the Catholic church is the most pro-women organization around??
Many, many details aside, it is clear that in an organization that values women SO LITTLE that it does not even permit them to be leaders within the organization itself, for no reason other than some vague nonsense about “tradition” or “well, the apostles were all men, so…. yea,” that feminist women who were raised Catholic still have a long way to go in an attempt to reconcile the two. Pope Benedict was quoted a few months ago saying that the “sin” of women attempting to be priests is a sin on par with child molestation. Ouch, Benny. In my experience, and in the experience of many of the women around me, trying to be a Catholic feminist is a bit like trying to be a Christian Jew. Basic concepts contradict.

Posted by Larry Peterson on Friday, Jun 3, 2011 7:22 AM (EST):

Beautifully done—-Kudos and Thank you

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Jun 3, 2011 1:11 AM (EST):

There is the world view of feminism as it applies to the culture we live in. The biblical view of feminism is one that Paul equates to a woman having a problem with God ordained male authority. In marriage, when there is a disagreement there can only be one who ultimately leads. Paul tells us that women should be submissive to their husband. At the same time, “the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves His church.” What godly woman would fail to submit graciously to her husband *if* she was loved by her husband “as Christ loves the church?” Does it get any better than that? On the other hand, men do a dis-service to women when they fail to take spiritual leadership of the home and family. When this happens, women become frustrated because their natural state is not to be the spiritual leader of the family. Women who are pressed into assuming such leadership are rightly angry in this unnatural and unspiritual role. The Genesis curse tells us that a “woman’s longing will be for her husband” as a result of the fall. You won’t find many homilies (if ever) covering this biblical truth, but feminism is linked biblically by Paul as he describes a “doctrine of demons”—aka witchcraft. Feminists have a problem with authority —male authority. Happily married women to godly, Christ-centered husbands have no need of feminism since this attribute is foreign to the spirit of godly, Christ-centered women.

Posted by David Casson on Thursday, Jun 2, 2011 11:47 PM (EST):

Feminism as a legal and cultural movement has made it all but impossible for us as a people to acknowledge real grievances and concerns on the part of men. It has used this blindness to steamroll over men for the last sixty years. The harm it has caused my sex is tremendous and it is, thus, my enemy. I embrace the good of women, and I recognize that feminism has done good for women, but given that it places itself in opposition to me as a man, such that it does not even want to hear me speak, I am opposed to it. It is well beyond the point where I can mince words about feminism or even accept it in a qualified fashion. No, I stand against it as my enemy, and it has for so long stood against me as its enemy.

.

That being said, we cannot ignore the fact that, in a sense, men and women are living in two separate worlds. It is unintelligent, and even dangerous, to pretend otherwise. So we have to continue this conversation about what is happening for women and men. Feminism, at least, has put this conversation on the table. Yet we should no longer allow feminism to dictate the terms of this discussion because it actually prevents us from having it honestly, completely, and intelligently. For one thing, men are not permitted to talk at this table, as I already said. For another, feminism does not really want a rational discussion. It censors, through strong means, anything that is not in keeping with its ideology - and there is much that is important to this conversation that is not in keeping with feminist ideology. For our social discourse on men and women to advance, we must depose feminism as queen and censor and put it on equal footing with the other participants. Only then can we finally breathe and say what we think and mean. At least, we men will finally be able to do that - but in a feminist world, it does not matter whether men can speak. I want to live in a world where my voice and my needs matter, too.

.

So frankly, I believe we need to stop using the term ‘feminism’ to denote the discourse on the relationship between the sexes. Contrary to their claims, feminists do not represent us all. Certainly they have completely destroyed *my* trust and *my* respect in this regard, and I do *not* want them claiming to speak on my behalf. What word should we use, then? Well, I think we Catholics need to stick with the word Catholic. That way, we won’t lose sight of what really matters to us in all this, and who, after all, defines what justice really is: Our Lord Jesus Christ. More, we can actually begin to redefine what it means to be Catholic in the eyes of the world. When someone asks a woman, “Do you plan to work or stay home?” she can respond, “Well, I’m a Catholic. I believe…” and she can proceed to offer an intelligent prudential judgment on this matter based on Church teaching and informed by our ongoing, *Catholic* discussion about the relationship between the sexes, which after all we can take far deeper than anyone else can. If we keep persisting in this discourse *as Catholics* in a totally open, honest, sincere, loving way, we can teach the world that to be Catholic is to care about justice for women *as women* and men *as men* - and that we don’t need some extraneous movement to do it for us, even if we did need some prompting to start doing the work ourselves.

Posted by William J Quinn on Thursday, Jun 2, 2011 10:12 AM (EST):

Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae issued a feminist manifesto.

Posted by David on Wednesday, Jun 1, 2011 9:21 AM (EST):

@Dee:

“The baggage that comes with the term ‘feminist’ was carried in by a vocal fringe” - how do you justify this claim? Not just anecdotally, from *your* first-hand experience, I hope.

Is this not an analogous argument to yours?: “I’m a Catholic who uses contraception and supports ordination for women. I’ve spoken to other Catholics about it and never been derided or ostracized for holding these views. Therefore the ‘anti-contraception, male priesthood’ view of what it means to be Catholic is just based on a few rogue stories. Those doctrines are held onto only by a vocal fringe.” - And if you felt like it, you could even conclude this argument, like Sonya, with a “Wake up sheeple!” ;)

Posted by Dee on Wednesday, Jun 1, 2011 8:55 AM (EST):

The baggage that comes with the term “feminist” was carried in by a vocal fringe, the kind that all movements seem to need to, well, move. The “cutting edge”. What is remarkable is that a few rogue stories have been used to characterize all women who identify as feminists. I was a stay-at-home Catholic mom with many feminist friends and contacts. I was never derided for my decision and though I engaged in many, sometimes heated, arguments about choice and abortion, I was never ostracized for my anti-abortion commitment.

Stories about stay-at-home moms being “put down”, bra burning, etc. take on a life of their own but my guess is few of us on either side of the “feminist” divide could honestly say we experienced this first hand or often. Feminists are all about the special gifts of women, as well as their special needs as mothers when that is their state. Family leave is a feminist accomplishment. We need to stop allowing others to put us at enmity and embrace anything that enhances the dignity of God’s people, including women.

Posted by Cindy on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:15 PM (EST):

I agree with much of this article. I think the word “feminist” should just be thrown out. I think it’s time society just stopped trying to either build up one gender or stomp on another. We’re all just people. Yes, we are all either female or male and that’s a big part of our identity, no doubt. We all have our God given gifts to contribute in a positive way to humanity and we should all use them. I’m a Catholic homeschooling mother of four and a housewife and I can honestly say there are some “wife” or “mother” duties that my husband does better than me. Typically it is a stereotype that women are spenders and require men to keep the finances in order, but I can honestly say that I keep the finances in order better than my husband. We should all try to accept the graces and shortcomings of the other no matter what their gender. I believe God has a purpose for each person and for each gender. That is why he created us “male and female”. I take much pride in being a female who is able to serve my husband and children. At the same time I also take great pride that my husband also “serves” and provides for myself and our children. My children also serve in everyway they can at home. So why be feminists or masculists? It’s unnecessary.

Posted by THERESE60640 on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:59 PM (EST):

Why don’t we all do a bit of evangelizing and e-mail this column, comments included, to our local “Catholic” high school principals, Theology and English teachers!! It’s time for them to be nudged in the direction of “adopted child of God” - feminism is so yesterday!!

Posted by Wsquared on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:40 AM (EST):

David, I love your answers. They’re hilarious! On a more serious note, they’re a stark reminder of how tyranny can come in many forms. Furthermore, anyone who has ever experienced girl bullying in any clique knows, or should know, darn well that tyranny isn’t always patriarchal. And here’s why: “Yes, but it’s for your own good. You’re so oppressed that you can’t see your own oppression.” And the real zinger that should make us all run for the hills: “And it’s not really about right or wrong: those are patriarchal categories; it’s about authenticity, embracing your own personal project.” Or you know what? I’m not going to run for the hills. I’m just gonna laugh. Because I suppose that means that logic, with its true and false, is “patriarchal,” then. Yep, that explains a whole heck of a lot.

I think this goes for all men and women who are in any way concerned about equality: never put anything (or anyone) less than God before God. Yet another reason why I have no use for men who think that women are stupid, certainly, but also good reason why I don’t wish to follow feminist sheeple down the street.

Paula, I used contraception and almost bought into the idea of the Big, Bad, Crusty Catholic Hierarchy, except for the fact that I’d had far too much experience dealing with awesome Catholics, which included some really awesome priests. As for “leaving” the Church or not, one does in a way when one uses contraception: one is not in full communion with the Church. And I had a similar experience with JPII: he understands, because he understands what it means to be human, and for men and women to be equal in dignity because both are created in God’s image.

Posted by Pat on Monday, May 30, 2011 2:06 PM (EST):

I’m with Paula and Mrs. Scott. While I don’t think I was as much of a card-carrying feminist as Paula was, I did use contraception and believed that Pope Paul VI was a man who didn’t know what it was like to be a woman who had to do this horrible thing of having babies. Then I got pregnant and that was that.

I never left the church, so I could not return, but I did give up many of my feminist ways of thinking and then I read Pope John Paul II’s letters to women and was amazed that a man who had never married or had children, let alone was a woman who had given birth to children, could understand what it meant to be a woman.

I also like the aphorism: “Real feminists don’t kill babies.”

Posted by Rebecca on Monday, May 30, 2011 8:34 AM (EST):

You express sentiments so eloquently,

Thank you.

Posted by Paula on Monday, May 30, 2011 3:59 AM (EST):

Sonya honey, you got some splainin’ to do!

I was a feminist sheeple. 2 years ago I made a conscious and informed decision to become an oppressed member of the evil Catholic Church. Yay me!

Posted by Mrs. Scott on Monday, May 30, 2011 3:33 AM (EST):

Even as a child, I was seriously disturbed by unfairness. As a 5 year old in ‘73 I remember the Billie Jean King / Bobby Riggs tennis match and knew that is was really important that the lady win that tennis game.

I became a hard core feminist and this is what that entailed for me:

Taking off my clothes for thousands of strangers for money and calling in “empowering”.
Seriously considering prostitution just to make a feminist political point.
Sleeping with as many men as possible in as careless a way as possible just to make a feminist political point and truly “live the life”.
Viewing every man as a likely enemy and oppressor.
Seething with endless, exhausting anger.
Making EVERYTHING about how women are victims.
Breathing in hate.

As a card carrying, Ms. reading, rally-organizing feminist, I was sure that Christianity was the KEY in keeping women oppressed. I was So effectively propagandized it is truly disturbing to me.

When God began to reveal Himself to me and I could no longer deny what was happening, I took the leap into following Him even though I feared that as a woman, I would forever sit in the back seat and never have my opinion valued again.

The first thing that Christ revealed to me was that HOLY has no gender.

I have NEVER been asked to sit in the back seat in my 8 years as a Christian. Maybe this is an anomaly but I don’t think it is. As a Catholic Christian woman I have never felt more respected in my life. I have been asked to be in several positions of leadership and so have many of my female friends. We get things done.
I now understand at the deepest level the gift of feminity and am so grateful for it. I only wish I hadn’t wasted so damned many years before coming to this place.
The world has it all wrong. The Catholic Church has been bringing me to my full potential. In the secular world, they told me my potential was to look hot and maybe write a sports column. Here and now I help people in a real way; I explore the depths of who I am and what I am capable of. Here I can look myself in the mirror and face what I am because I know I will always have Christ’s help in becoming fully me.

It is not just unfortunate that liberal feminists don’t know what they’re missing, it is a tragedy of epic proportions. I relish my daughter’s opportunites as an informed, energized, self-respecting Catholic woman.

ON a final note, I love what was said earlier “Real feminists don’t kill babies”. I gotta get me that bumper sticker.

Posted by Steven on Sunday, May 29, 2011 7:24 PM (EST):

It depends on her alma mater: Smith (West Point of Feminism)—slim to none, but not impossible. Mount Holyoke, Wellesley and Mills? Not nearly as challenging. Boston College and Georgetown? LOL.

Posted by dan on Sunday, May 29, 2011 4:50 PM (EST):

you sunk my battleship!!

Posted by David on Saturday, May 28, 2011 4:00 PM (EST):

Wsquared: Good questions! (Here are some answers):

Do feminists who assume that one can’t be pro-life and feminist respect the choices of pro-life women and respect their reasons? (No.)
Or do the choices of pro-life women and their side of the debate not matter? (They matter only insofar as they’re wrong and pernicious and must be stamped out.)
Have you ever thought honestly about what it is you think you’re “choosing” and why? (Yes, I did this in my Women’s Studies class and while I was reading Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, et al.)
Furthermore, where do you get off assuming that the conclusions that many Catholic women come to is necessarily because of crusty old men who tell us what to do? (I’m a feminist; that’s just one of our beliefs.)
What, so that women like you can tell us what to do instead? (Yes, but it’s for your own good. You’re so oppressed that you can’t see your own oppression.)
However much you might question received wisdom, why should we then substitute that sort of received wisdom for your sort? (Because my sort is correct.)
Also, what makes a choice right (or wrong)? Simply because one has chosen or that one chooses? (No. Because one has chosen with full awareness of the existential dimensions of one’s choice. And it’s not really about right or wrong: those are patriarchal categories; it’s about authenticity, embracing your own personal project (you can’t do that if you subjugate yourself to the patriarchal determination of the categories for understanding that project).)

Posted by Wsquared on Saturday, May 28, 2011 2:59 PM (EST):

A feminist respects all choices women make in regard to their bodies, not just the ones the church tells them too.

Really Sonya? Do feminists who assume that one can’t be pro-life and feminist respect the choices of pro-life women and respect their reasons? Or do the choices of pro-life women and their side of the debate not matter? Not every woman who is pro-life is necessarily Catholic, so you might dispense with the “sheeple” remark—besides, you’ve hardly questioned your own assumptions: while it is not pro-woman to assume that women are only good for being dictated to or to have child after child after child in some sort of utilitarian sense, it’s hardly pro-woman to assume that a woman’s biology is necessarily a threat to her happiness, freedom, dignity, and equality. Have you ever thought honestly about what it is you think you’re “choosing” and why?

Furthermore, where do you get off assuming that the conclusions that many Catholic women come to is necessarily because of crusty old men who tell us what to do? What, so that women like you can tell us what to do instead? However much you might question received wisdom, why should we then substitute that sort of received wisdom for your sort? If you haven’t asked those questions, I might then ask you who’s the “sheep”?

Also, what makes a choice right (or wrong)? Simply because one has chosen or that one chooses? Choices have consequences, not all of them equally good. And nobody necessarily “needs” the Church specifically to point out the obvious: that abortion kills babies and with those babies, human capital—might we have just aborted a future neurosurgeon, for example? To say nothing of future tax payers whose money will pay for future social programs and such? And what happens in a society that’s rapidly aging? Again, not everyone who asks those questions and comes to those conclusions is necessarily Catholic when they do. It’s just that the Church does us a great, good favor by spelling it out loud and clear when other people refuse to do so. And when we listen—some of us having been where you are right now, by the way, but having changed our minds upon further thought—it’s because we have good reason to: we take in what the Church has to say as part of the information that we gather and that we chew over in an effort to understand. Now that’s real choice.

Posted by Marissa on Friday, May 27, 2011 2:04 PM (EST):

This: From my fellow Catholics: Stop thinking of women as objects who are here to save you from personal sexual sin; and stop thinking of women as intellectually inferior to men. Stop assuming that all women are meant to bear child after child no matter what; and stop pretending that if women just tried a little harder, men would be happy all the time.

Well said! I am just now reading the book Half the Church, by: Carolyn Custis James. It’s from a protestant perspective, but she touches on some of these very issues. Yes, if we are mothers, we should take that vocation seriously. Yes, the same if we are wives. But for many of us, we may live all our lives without either vocation. Or even those of us who marry and have children, there is a large percentage of our lives where neither of our tasks are our concern. How do we as women reflect God’s image in the world? In the creation account, God’s purposes for men and women were huge, challenging, and glorious. The word that describes women as “helpers” is the same word God uses when he comes to the military aid of Israel. There is a sense of strength, of partnership, of mutual respect. We miss out when we decide to let ourselves be boxed in.

Posted by Pat on Friday, May 27, 2011 7:17 AM (EST):

Thanks, Simcha, for these comments:

“What change would I like to see? From the secular world: Stop thinking of women as sex objects; but at the same time, stop thinking of women as identical to men. Stop treating fertility like a disease; but stop pretending that women can be full-time mothers and full-time careerists. Stop blaming men for everything that is wrong with the world. It’s tiresome and counterproductive.”

With this I agree wholeheartedly, especially the second to last sentence. I am nearly 65. When I was a child, fathers on TV were wise, now they are baffoons. In our attempt to elevate women we have only succeeded in devaluing men. This is not the best approach.

“From my fellow Catholics: Stop thinking of women as objects who are here to save you from personal sexual sin; and stop thinking of women as intellectually inferior to men. Stop assuming that all women are meant to bear child after child no matter what; and stop pretending that if women just tried a little harder, men would be happy all the time. Stop blaming women for everything that is wrong with the Church. It’s cowardly and childish.”

I’m not sure if this is true, at least not in my circle of friends in my parish. I think this is a rather old-fashioned way of looking at Catholic women. And I have never heard of women being blamed for everything wrong with the Church. Rather I constantly hear/read that men, in particular the all male, celibate priesthood is to blame for all of what is wrong with the Church.

I would call on women to read Pope John Paul II’s letters to women and feel the respect he had for women.

Posted by Phil Steinacker on Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:58 PM (EST):

Sonya,

Sorry to disappoint you but I have an opinion on any subject interesting enough to me to examine, and I am fully entitle to that opinion regardless of YOUR opinion on my qualifications to do so. Some of this “lived experience” nonsense has crept into our theology as well, but to a far more limited degree than the balderdash put forth by the feminist and progressive black camps.

However, if your demand were to hold any water at all, then we’d see a total disappearance of a host of laws because the overwhelming majority of lawmakers (and the voters who elected them) have no “lived experience” to validate their opinions on those laws. I’m sure if you look at yourself carefully (although I know this is asking too much of you because doing is not sufficiently self-serving) you’ll discover you’ve ventured forth with a slew of opinions over your lifetime which are not at all rooted in your experience. With a moment’s reflection I’m sure you might know the word that applies to your comment (and it’s not an expletive).

Be honest (again). Surely you’re old enough to recognize that your stated position can be boiled down to the very simple and one-dimensional wail of the teen-ager’s classic lament: I want what I want, and I want it NOW - and I don’t want to hear anything you’ve got to say about it!

Otherwise known as, “Shut up!” she explained.

So get off the soapbox. Judging from the range of comments produced by this community, you are dealing with adults - NOT teen-agers.

This tired mantra is a product of feminist and progressive rhetoric designed to intimidate folks into giving up any public airing of their views because you don’t like them. Sadly, it has worked for far too long with some, but that is channging. Now the Internet allows us to call out such attempts to control peoples’ views, so the days of its effectiveness are numbered and rapidly drawing to a close.

Posted by Christina on Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:29 PM (EST):

Sonya, in the pro-life movement the majority of the leaders are women. One of the thing we lament in my local community is the dearth of strong pro-life men. (Women have lead 3 of the 4 40 Days for Life here). Perhaps what you’ve been told about women being slaves to men in the pro-life movement isn’t true and you should consider what you are told before believing it?

Posted by Sonya on Thursday, May 26, 2011 4:19 PM (EST):

A “Catholic feminist” that’s kind of an oxymoron. A feminist respects all choices women make in regard to their bodies, not just the ones the church tells them too. When the old men of the Catholic church start shooting babies out of their rears, they will have an opinion. Until then, they know absolutely nothing about what it’s like to be a woman and as such are not entitled to an opinion. If women choose to follow these old men like sheep, well they get what they deserve, the old man’s foot firmly on their throats. Wake up sheeple!

Posted by David on Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:44 PM (EST):

@Simcha:
I’m hardly an expert on the history, but I’m well aware that there is great diversity (disagreement) within what is now called ‘feminism.’ My (limited) understanding, however, is that the early ‘feminists’ never called themselves that: they were ‘suffragettes’ and fought for ‘women’s liberty’ (or didn’t have labels). They were retroactively labeled ‘first-wave feminists’ in the 1970’s (by ‘second-wave feminists’), but it is important to note that even ‘first-wave feminism’ includes people like Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes - in other words, the general notion ‘feminism,’ from a realistic historical perspective, seems inextricably bound up with support for morally abhorrent projects - racism, eugenics, abortion, birth-control, rejection of the institution of marriage - as well as the more positive ones.—Still, language is living, so if you want to take a crack at reshaping it, go for it. (That seems to be just what the original feminists - the ones who actually invented the term - did when they invented the term ‘first-wave feminism’ and co-opted the historical project of the suffragettes, for example, under their much more unabashedly radical contemporary ‘feminist’ campaign.) Anyway, it seems to me that caution is needed. Sometimes it’s better to make distinctions (to preserve the truth), sometimes it’s better to blur them (to highlight commonalities and open the way to relationship and dialogue). Maybe it’s a man thing, but I tend to stress the priority of the former, although the latter is certainly also indispensable.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:18 PM (EST):

Dan, I have undying respect for a writer who can stand up and say what you just said there. In your second post, I mean.

Posted by dan on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:16 PM (EST):

also I didn’t mean anything by my first sentence. I just think it’s interesting.

Posted by dan on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:14 PM (EST):

Most of the female commenters like it; most of the men don’t. I think I remember reading a long time ago that the term was first used in the late 19th century by a French woman, but it didn’t come into popular usage until the 60s. I don’t know if that’s true, though.

I don’t like the term personally because of my own experiences with feminists, which have been largely negative. Or at least made me FEEL bad, emotionally speaking. Even when I look back on the time when I generally considered myself a feminist and had close feminist friends.

The thing about feminism is that no one person founded it, so there is no one definition. It’s not like Marxism or some other ism that came from one person who elaborated the meaning of the term.

Posted by J H on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:43 PM (EST):

I mean “than” not “then”

Posted by J H on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:43 PM (EST):

Isn’t it so easy though, to talk about what men should do, then to talk about what women should do? I feel like men get ragged on all the time about not living up to their roles. I can’t change my husband (not would I want to - he’s wonderful and amazing), but I can change myself.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:07 PM (EST):

Err, that’s “The next line, addressed to women, actually has no *verb*.” That would make a lot more sense…

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:05 PM (EST):

I think Lynn hit on what I was trying to say. I don’t disagree at all with J H - there were many Catholic saints - men too but usually women - who gained recognition as a saint because of the way they loved their spouse, even if their spouse was not very loving in response. And oftentimes, that love transformed their spouse in the end, which is a beautiful thing.
The problem is that many people - especially of the type that Simcha described - are convinced that the subordination only goes one way. Wives are to be not just subordinate but submissive to the point that the man basically just does what he wants and expects his wife to submit to it. That’s not authentic Christian teaching in any way or fashion.
The husband, interestingly, is the only one actually given a separate command in Ephesians 5, and he’s the one that Paul focuses most of his attention on. Paul starts by saying “subordinate yourselves to one another out of love for Christ”. Father John Riccardo, who wrote his thesis on this passage, notes that the next line, addressed to wives, actually has no verse. Literally translated, it says “Wives, as to your husbands” - there’s no new command here, it’s a continuation of the first line.
All the instruction is given to the husband on how he should love his wife, as Christ loved the Church. A husband should put his wife before himself (and the wife her husband before herself). If a man is truly living in this fashion, then forcing his wife into relations when she doesn’t want them would be unthinkable. And the idea of blaming one’s wife for one’s personal sins - it would be ridiculous. That’s not how Christ loves the Church. He didn’t go to the cross, then say “Look what you did to me. This is all your fault and I hate you because of it.” He hung on the cross and said “Look what I did for love of you, to spare you of the things you brought on yourself. I am dying so that you might live.”
But as always, people twist Scripture to their purposes all the time, and they take what is a beautiful passage on the nature of Christ for His Bride into something horribly wicked and twisted. Can you imagine Christ treating His Bride the way these men treat their wives? Maybe if they thought on that, they’d really get it.
For people who have the time (it’s about an hour and a half) Fr. John has a wonderful talk on Ephesians 5 here - http://traffic.libsyn.com/stanastasia/TOBSession020911.m4a
The handout of which can be found here - http://www.olgcparish.net/files/frjohn/handouts/theologybody/TOBSession10Handouts.pdf
He’s a great priest and speaker who has a regular show on Ave Maria Radio called “Christ is the Answer”. If you’ve never heard him speak, you really need to!

Posted by Lynn on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:32 AM (EST):

I get nervous when people start talking about Eph 5 and how a wife should do her part, and maybe twice as hard, to inspire her husband to do his. When you have two healthy, functioning people, I’m sure it can work to have a nice pendulum thing going on. But in the case of a man who lords it over his wife, the very last thing she should do is try to submit more/better, because that will make him despise her more. That’s when outside help is needed, imo, because he needs to be accountable to someone he can’t dominate.

Thank you for your empowering and honest words! I blog on this, as a Catholic married woman who loves our Church and feels like we are responsible to keep her heart passionate… Love the comment that a feminist is one dissatisfied with the status quo.

Posted by Sherry Weddell on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:05 AM (EST):

I’ve always thought of myself (when I think about it at all which isn’t too often cause of the press of work) as a Christian feminist a la Dorothy Sayers and her hilarious essay “Are Women Human?” written in the 30’s.

Since I occupy a very unusual role (co-founder and co-director of a major international ministry dedicated to the formation of the laity but affiliated with a men’s religious order - the Dominicans), I collaborate very closely with priests alot. On several occasions I have found myself the only woman in a gathering of clergy or clergy/male academics.

Once, I wickedly observed “Guess I broke up the group think just by walking into the room?” and my partner-in-crime, OP raised his eyebrow meaningfully at me. Ok, I’ll be good.

But I do think of a Catholic feminist (and men like Bl John Paul II can definitely be one) as someone who embraces the full humanity of both men and women. Human beings are 1) human, 2) male or female, 3) individuals “unique and irreplaceable manifestations of the human mystery” all at the same time and we must encounter and honor all three aspects of every person we met simultaneously. Bl. John Paul II had a genius for doing so and passed that onto us as our heritage.

Conservative Catholics are sometime prone to regard women as a pre-defined class and only as “woman”, liberals as only individuals. But we are all three together at all times. The battlelines of the culture wars try to force us to focus on and honor only one or the other.

Posted by Amy M. on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:35 AM (EST):

A Catholic feminist to me means someone who really doesn’t need to think too deeply about what this means; she sort of just takes on that role naturally. She is someone who doesn’t feel inferior or discriminated against because the Church has specific roles for men and women. She’s someone comfortable in her own skin who truly embraces being female. She is 100% pro life and absolutely faithful to the teachings of the Church. She exudes joy and love and is passionate about women embracing their true femininity which begins with truly believing they are worthy of respect and insisting that others treat them that way despite negative stereotyping by society. She remembers and prays for those women “stuck” in drug addiction,alcoholism, pornography and prostitution because they do not know that God loves them. A Catholic feminist thanks God for the blessings she has received from God and desires that all women live in God’s love.

Posted by J H on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:29 AM (EST):

Pam wrote: “In all seriousness though, the “subordination” of women (which the wonderful Father John Riccardo defines as “willingly placing yourself as a person of equal dignity under the authority of your husband”) depends entirely on men doing their part”
/
I would say that there is greater virtue in subordinating oneself because it’s what Christ asks of us, not because it is in exchange for men doing their part. While every marriage works uniquely, and every couple define subordination in a way that works for them, I would say that a wife’s subordination - in the most perfect scenario - would also inspire the “love as Christ loved the Church” in the husband. These things should work to support each other. Because we are human, sometimes one has to do their part in order for the other to do theirs even if that part is undeserved by the other spouse. It would make it easier for the wife is the husband naturally LOVED his wife as he should, and a wife’s perfect submission would make it easier for her husband to love her with such perfection.
/
I think we set ourselves up for failure if we decide that we are going to wait until our spouse does his/her part before we do ours. And sometimes, I think a spouse has to work doubly hard if the other isn’t doing their part, not that you get a free pass if the other isn’t living up to his/her part of the bargain (i.e. marriage).
/
Sometimes setting up the ideal as the norm just makes everything harder for everyone involved - and makes people give up before they even try.
/
An example of this would be an aunt of mine whose husband abandoned her 30 years before his death. He left her with three young children in an age and society that was not kind to divorced or single mothers. She didn’t take her wedding ring off until the day that he died. Despite the fact that he had reneged on his vows, she still lived up to hers as well as she was able, in a heroic fashion, in my mind.

Posted by ARM on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:10 AM (EST):

@Pam - I’m not saying you aren’t right about how Ephesians 5 should be understood, but oddly, I’ve noticed the kind of guys Simcha is talking about often LOVE talking about Ephesians 5; e.g., certain guys who write creepy manifestos about how women should never wear pants that some of us may have read. Don’t know why, but maybe their reasoning is “I’m sacrificing my life for you, so you darn well better be a flawless vessel of purity for me!”

Posted by stef on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 1:46 AM (EST):

i would love to identify myself with “real” feminism—the kind that respects women like JPII did. but right now i have nothing but abhorrence for the term feminism, since people calling themselves “feminists” are pushing REALLY REALLY hard an anti-life agenda in the Philippines (known as the Reproductive Health Bill) that will be the undoing of Filipina women and the end of the Filipino family as I (and many others) once knew it. right now i would prefer the term pro-woman.

Posted by Gene on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:31 PM (EST):

“stop thinking of women as intellectually inferior to men.”

Some studies of intelligence indicate that men and women are equally intelligent, but this is misleading because the “bell curve” is wider for men than it is for women.

Specifically, you’ll find among men a lot more jackass idiots, but also a lot more super-intelligent nerdy types. (See Charles Murray’s essay “The Inequality Taboo”.)

So I’m not sure we can pretend intellectual equality between the sexes is a reality, anymore than we can pretend physical strength is equally distributed.

Posted by momofthree on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:16 PM (EST):

Kelly! You stole my post. I think being a Christian means you HAVE to be a feminist in the way you defined it (women are not inferior to men). There are still lots of people who think that women ARE inferior to men, so it is important to work in a Christian sort-of way to stop this. I for one, think that women can lead very effectively and have no problem with women priests/preachers either, but I also think it entirely misguided to think that women should be considered “liberated” when they can abort their own children, and they are portrayed on MTV as salivating sexpots.

I remember in graduate school when we were giving talks to a large audience. One, very bright, but very strident woman got up dressed in extremely inappropriate and provocative clothing. People were squirming in their seats and it was difficult to see past her clothing to hear her points. Later, another student got up and she wore a headscarf and extremely modest dress. Other than mentally registering her ethnic attire for a moment, the audience focused its attention entirely on her topic, and the post-talk discussion revealed as much. It was a strong lesson.

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:39 PM (EST):

After I posted earlier I thought back on the Protestant creep into communities of traditional Catholics and their views of women as “guardian of purity.” Martin Luther was absolutely obsessed with masturbation and was convinced that celibacy, among other things, would lead to its increase. At this time in history, also, women were considered the more sexually aggressive “loose cannons” of society, and thus needed marriage and babies to direct that reproductive energy. The ensuing obsession with women as the deciders of male purity has morphed a lot in the ensuing generations, but has also infected Catholic thinking which shouldfight strenuously its influences.

Posted by Holly in Nebraska on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:34 PM (EST):

I don’t think the word “feminist” is useful if you have to define it. Words get their meaning organically. If you have to define it, it isn’t the right word to use. It’s hard to force a word to change meaning. “Marriage” is a good, recent example.

I went to a church once that washed hands instead of feet on Maundy Thursday. This was suppose to symbolize cleansing our hands for service. But all I could think of was Pilate. You can’t really change something that has had a definite meaning for 2000 years just because you want to. Needless to say, I didn’t participate.

I would leave the word “feminist” to the feminists. If we need a word, one will crop up.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:33 PM (EST):

Heh, if guys were to take Ephesians 5 seriously, we wouldn’t have this problem! One of our priests likes to call that reading his “Nudge and wink” reading. He says that whenever he starts out, he can see all the guys in the pews nudging and winking to their girlfriends/wives/female friends when it talks about woman “subordinating herself” to her husband. They never seem to notice the second part though! Father Brian goes on to remind the guys that their role in the marriage is to love their wives the way Jesus loved the Church, and Jesus loved the Church by dying for her! So Father Brian says “So ladies, you just have to submit. Men, you have to die! Whose nudging and winking now?”
In all seriousness though, the “subordination” of women (which the wonderful Father John Riccardo defines as “willingly placing yourself as a person of equal dignity under the authority of your husband”) depends entirely on men doing their part - that is loving their wives like Christ loves His Bride. If men were to do that, who would be afraid to put themselves under their husband’s love, knowing that he would die first if necessary for your sake, and by extension put your needs before his own? That kind of love frees a woman to truly be who she is - not someone who is servile, weaker, or less capable - but as someone set free by love to then be loving herself. That’s the example that Christ is trying to set for His Church.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:16 PM (EST):

re: women as objects to save you from personal sexual sin: I think this attitude isn’t just manifested in ugly little suggestions like the idea of what should actually take place in the marriage bed. It’s the general attitude that men are the ones with actual souls, and women are here mainly as a kind of maintenance crew. Like most horrible ideas, it has a kernel of truth—I am becoming more and more comfortable with the idea that part of what it means to be a woman is to be accommodating (up to a point!)—but they’ve distorted it into something really repugnant. Once you have a really major misunderstanding about sex, then the rest of your marriage gets ugly pretty quickly.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:03 PM (EST):

@Pam, yes, precisely. It’s chilling to hear the way these guys speak of their wives. They make such a big fuss about sexual purity, but they seem to regard their own wives as pure utilitarian vessels for their own convenience.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:57 PM (EST):

Scary, Simcha…around the college age crew, the attitude I sometimes see is that once you’re married, sex with with your spouse can’t be immoral. I commented once that I thought the sin of lust would be especially dangerous within a marriage - precisely because the joining of man and woman in marriage is an objectively good thing. But that might cloud the eyes for when we are using our spouse instead of loving them. I was told by another student (a guy, if it makes any difference, but I don’t think it does) that that idea was rubbish, as if lust for one’s spouse was somehow better than lusting after someone else. (Note that lusting after and desiring are two different things here.)
If we’re not allowed to make sexual objects of each other before marriage, why should that be any different after marriage, even if you’re married to that person? Honestly…

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:51 PM (EST):

@chatto: this is something you will hear mostly on ultra-traditionalist message boards such as Fisheaters. They say that a married woman does not have the right to say “not tonight, please” to her husband, even if she is sick, exhausted, or wants to postpone a pregnancy—because it could lead him to masturbate. If he did, it would be her fault. Yes, people really say this - men and women.

.

I also had in mind—and this one is a bit trickier—the idea that woman must dress in a way that is so modest, it makes it impossible for men to lust after them. I believe that women should not deliberately dress in a provocative way; but I don’t believe that women are responsible for making it impossible for men to lust after them (even if it were possible to come up with an outfit that is lust-proof to all men!).

Posted by chatto on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:43 PM (EST):

Simcha, could you explain what you meant by “Stop thinking of women as objects who are here to save you from personal sexual sin”? As a young, unmarried man, I think I know what you mean, though I’m under no illusions of being saved by any future wife. Do people really think like this? It’s not something I’ve ever heard of. Thanks in advance.

Posted by mk on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:13 PM (EST):

GKChesteron says that the freest members of society are stay at home moms. They wear what they want to work, they eat when they’re hungry, they go to the zoo if they feel like and clean when they decide to. They can eat breakfast in the bathtub, put carpeting on their ceilings and wear flip flops in the winter. I’m certainly not saying that it isn’t hard work! I raised six kids…I get it. But it’s not about the work. It’s about the freedom…to do what you want and need to do when you decide to do it. Unlike the husbands who wear what someone else tells them to, go to the same office day after day, eat lunch on someone else clock…I love that I can read a book OR clean the toilet. That I can eat pancakes for dinner or pizza for breakfast. That I can wear my PJ’s till noon or be dressed and ready to go by 4:00am. It’s all up to me! Women rock. When they understand how awesome it is to BE a woman that is, and stop trying to BE men.

Haha…my capcha was “decision16”...

Posted by Laura on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:48 PM (EST):

I love this! Tales of another Catholic Feminist: I set the bar high and figured I’d never be married. However, Our Good Lord gave me a vocation as a physician and so I, as a Navy doctor, served our nation’s men and women with a glad heart. Then at 29, my husband, now of 18 years, and I married, because he didn’t flinch at the high bar, and I didn’t adjust downward prior to our wedding. We have two beautiful daughters. He had a brain tumor, but is doing OK. This made me the bread-winner in the family. We do what we have to and give thanks to God in good times and in bad times. As Psalm 150 concludes so well: Let all with breath give thanks to God! Amen!

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:48 PM (EST):

@Bender: uh-huh . . . so if you were a married man who was entirely in charge of the budget, and the landlord stopped by to ask for a postdated check for the rent because he was going on vacation, you’d say, “No, stop! My wife is out of the house, and we are an ‘us’ now, so please don’t say another word until she gets back.”

Posted by Bender on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:24 PM (EST):

**he always insisted on waiting until my husband got home before he would discuss any of these things with us**
__________________

Interesting and telling choice of words there—“discuss any of these things with us.” Not “discuss any of these things with HIM,” but “discuss any of these things with US.”
.
Discussing such things with both of you, rather than just him or just you, is of course proper. An authentic feminism recognizes that women are not islands unto themselves. We are relational beings, and a married womon is in relationship with a husband. Authentic feminism recognizes this relational nature of woman, such that you are two become one. As “two become one,” in financial matters, as in others, you are no longer a “me,” you are an “us,” so it is right to wait until hubby gets home.

Posted by Phil Steinacker on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:21 PM (EST):

Let’s all remember that the lynchpin to the progressive strategy over the decades hs been to slowly - inch by inch - capture control of all societal institutions: news media, entertainment media, schools (all three tiers), churches, government, financial institutions, foundations, etc. An initial and primary tactic to deliver such control has been to capture the language, either by inventing new words which mean what our progressive masters want them to mean (homophobic, feminism, feminist) or transforming existing words to serve the new world order best by bringin the old one to heel all the more quickly (racism, gay, “rights”).

The truth of my analysis is in the pudding: it has worked all to well and continues to be effective.

I say we understand taht dynamic, and as an old 60s lefty who lived through a lot of it, I say we recognize the poweerful effectiveness of seizing and re-casting the meaning of existing and heavily-used terminology and, where it’s useful, even create some new ones for the culture to choke on (as Catholics we have a nearly endless lexicon of “new” and relatively unworn words, phrases, and concepts to support we can bestow upon a hapless spiritual enemy. Two can play this game, and we can do a better job of it long-term because of Who is in our corner.

Also, we have another advantage I’ve rarely seen mentioned or discussed until it was finally acknowledged last week on a blog somewhere, and that is the advantage of being counter-cultural. I witnessed the counter-cultural Left openly brag about its counter-cultural roots as it tore down society in general by sowing confusion among its various institutions. Most of the Old Guard in those days were living off the “we’ve always done it that way!” mantra - whatever “it” happened to be. I can tell you that makes for a poor defense when teen-agers are assessing both the cleverness of the challenge and the depth of reason found in your response.

The Church is Counter-cultural; therefore WE are countercultural. We need to live that out by capitalizing on the chinks in the armor already inflicted by others in the New Catholic Feminist mystique, by harkening back to original and pro-life feminist roots like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, while uniting them with modern Catholic and prolife feminists (and EVERYTHING implied by this newly minted phrase underdiscussion) like Pope John Paul II.

Keep in mind that the “traditional” (that made me laugh as I saw article after article refer to that phrase while complaining about Palin, Bachman, and pro-life women) meaning of “feminist” has already suffered great setbacks because of Sarah Palin and a host of other high-profile and pro-life American women who reject progressivism while simultaneously invoking and utilizing so-called “feminist” principles and tactices to deliver the goods.

Seize the day - and seize the language. Make it our own once again, and begin with the phrase “Catholic feminist.”

Posted by Jeanne Grunert on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:29 PM (EST):

I too like your definition but also recoil at the word “feminist.” I just see in my mind’s eye a card-carrying, pro abort, shaven-headed NOW member when I heard that word. I think the conclusion is that you can be faithful to the Church and faithful to yourself; and thank you for reminding women that the church is PRO women!

Posted by Sydney Ruth on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:20 PM (EST):

Another great post, Simcha.
When I was in college, which was before I became a Catholic and when I was a feminist in the more mainstream sense, I read an Alice Walker essay in which she used the word “womanist” instead of feminist. She used it for and said it could only be used by women of color. But I confess I loved the term because it both avoided all the baggage (and yes even then I was aware that there was baggage) with the traditional term “feminist” and yet offered support for and, even more importantly, celebration of womanhood.

Since becoming an orthodox, card-carrying Catholic (and theologian), I love this term EVEN more and think that it could be adopted by all women who love being women but who also realize that there is work to be done, even if it isn’t always or often the work mainstream feminists would agree with. It also picks up on Blessed JP II’s theology of the body: focusing on the goodness on being incarnate, being a woman, not just being “feminine” which is an adjective, and everyone, male and female, has feminine and masculine qualities. Ultimately, what’s in a name? But I offer this as one way to start looking at the subject anew and with celebration of man and woman at the heart of it.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:19 PM (EST):

Meg, I find your experience with men and their views on womens’ intelligence interesting. Of course I’m not arguing that you’ve experienced that, but its completely the opposite in my experience. Non-Catholic Christian and perhaps especially atheist men have always been the first to judge that I am stupid and I have no idea what I’m talking about when I jump into an apologetics conversation with them - often about something biological like stem cells, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. The disdain that drips from their written text is palpable. Imagine their surprise to discover I have a BS in Biomedical Science, double minors in genetics and psychology, and a thesis MS in Genetics. :-P I don’t pull that card often, but the reaction is pretty funny when I do.
The Catholic men I often do apologetics with side by side have been very quick to accept whatever prowess at apologetics I might have, regardless of whether they are more, less or equally skilled. I’ve struck up quite a few good friendships with many such men over the years since women in the fray seem to be a bit rare. Maybe its a difference of having gotten to know these men over time, whether online or in person, or perhaps its simply the nature of having met them doing something a bit more academically oriented like apologetics.
Suffice it to say though, not all Catholic men automatically think women are dumb!

Posted by Meg on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:09 PM (EST):

I don’t think you are a feminist. You are an advocate for femininity, which is different, and should belong squarely in the middle of Catholicism. I think the role of women should be more hashed out by the Magisterium, but I think they’re trying to figure it out too (an encyclical on women was drafted and then decided not to be released).

1) Loved your points on both women in the secular world and women in the Catholic world. These are too often considered the only two options for viewing women, and it’s refreshing to hear a Catholic woman carve out a third option.

2) On outfits and hair: Holiness, and unholiness, is a disposition of the soul that expresses itself through action. That is to say, something like purity or modesty should start in the soul and express itself in action. More clearly: a woman can be wearing an ankle-length skirt and button-up shirt and still be immodest through her behavior and the way she carries herself. Likewise, a woman can wear a knee-length skirt and a reasonable scoop neck and conduct herself modestly. So trying to control a woman’s dress (with something like long hair only or long skirts only) is going to do no one any good except divide women between the obedient, repressed, and angry, or some combination thereof.

3) On intelligence: as a woman pursuing a Master’s in Theology, I can vouch that Catholic men, often moreso than their Protestant counterparts, will assume that you are less intelligent than they are, until you prove them otherwise. This can be remedied by encouraging more Catholic women, especially nuns (*cough*Dominicans*cough*) to take a more visible role in higher education.

So, no, you’re not a feminist. You’re a refreshing perspective from a fellow Catholic woman who is voicing concerns that I have had for quite some time.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:58 PM (EST):

@laura: my mother says “dungarees.”

Posted by laura on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:57 PM (EST):

@Marion (Mael Muire)

So, your relatives may have been great and done the right thing, but methinks I smell a whiff of family bitterness? I have grandparents that didn’t have tons of money but just went for it and had 14 kids and it sorted itself out alright. Who’s to say who gets more points? I just think it’s interesting that your family seems to be passing down the “we spaced kids for a good reason and the world judged us” mentality and mine’s got more of a “it didn’t make sense but we went with it and it worked out” mentality.

God will judge us each on our own merits. But there are more of my clan floating around, anyway. HA!

Posted by laura on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:53 PM (EST):

urg. “to be contentious.” And Galatians 3:28

Posted by kk on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:49 PM (EST):

I happily use the term feminist to describe myself. Only a true feminist would advocate for a woman to be accepted as she truly is, fertility and all, and not to become more like a man to be accepted.

Posted by laura on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:48 PM (EST):

I’m a 33 year old female practicing catholic, and I find the term “feminist” to be dated, offensive and stupid. Why don’t people just call themselves “genderists” if they need to highlight the fact that they have a burning desire contentious?

As I was born in ‘78 and raised in moderately-to-highly liberal upstate NY I had the benefit of a totally enlightened upbringing in which I was not only assured that women were equal but probably in some way superior to men. I like to think I’m balanced, but who knows? If I wear a frilly skirt I try to balance it with big clunky shoes. I have absolutely no idea how the idea of male “headship” in the family makes any rational sense - my husband and I have different strengths and weaknesses so why should his gender be a trump card in decision making? I encourage my girls to play sports and my boys to play piano. I have long hair and I usually wear pants.

But I don’t see the “feminist” thing as being worth recapturing or reviving or rescuing or addressing or whathaveyou. I think the Faith, as the Faith is sufficient to bring women into the Church. I think feminism is interesting from a historical perspective, having done both great and harmful things. But can’t we put it to rest? The term makes me cringe in the same way as when my mom’s generation says “slacks.”

“There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus”.

Posted by Elizabeth on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:26 PM (EST):

Simcha, I am reposting this. Great article!

The Duggar women aren’t allowed to leave home because they aren’t married. I don’t think this post is for/about them.

Posted by Katharine on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 2:54 PM (EST):

I think feminist will do just fine for our purposes. Do we not want to defend women and femininity? I sure do. It’s the other kind of “feminists” who have betrayed their movement by acting as though what oppressed women have needed all along is to become men, and men at their worst too, not good men even. Why should we let them have the term when they abuse it so badly?

As the fallout from “feminism” continues to rain down I become increasingly embarrassed that any female with a brain would continue to stand by the notions that have served us so poorly over the last 40 years. Unfortunately most of the founding mothers of that brand of “feminism” seem to be largely a group of bitter, ex-free love hippies who thought that by labeling things differently and throwing abortions around they could soothe the hurt and degradation that comes from engaging in lots of zero commitment, promiscuous sex.

Women need to reclaim their lives and their bodies and stop playing to an imaginary crowd of adoring men who will fall on their knees and give homage if only they…do crazy things in bed, wear ankle length skirts, get a high-powered job, stay home with kids, become a cloistered Carmelite, can drink men under the table, are still a size 2 after having 3 children (or whatever feats they imagine appeal to the target adoring audience).

Real feminism is ultimately about living a life that is pleasing to God and defending the right of other women to do so. That can take so many different shapes and many of them will not look conventional or safe and would draw puzzled stares from every crowd and that’s fine.

Posted by Kelly on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 2:52 PM (EST):

I took a class in college which had a section on feminism (it was not in the women’s studies dept) and at the beginning the professor said, “Raise your hand if you consider yourself a feminist.” I raised my hand and looked around to find that I was the only person who had raised their hand. He then went around the room and asked why people said that they weren’t or were, in my case. The answers were “Because I’m a Christian,” “Because I don’t hate men” “Because I am a man” or “Because I don’t believe in abortion.” When he got to me, I said “I thought a feminist was someone who feels that women aren’t inferior to men.” Everyone else kind of went “Oh, well in that case, of course I’m a feminist!” Apparently, defining your terms can make all the difference.

I have an interest in the fundamentalist patriarchy movement, and learning about some of their beliefs (I would differ with your opinion on the Duggars, Barbara) I appreciate all the more how nuanced and truly feminist the Catholic Church is.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:55 PM (EST):

@David: I think you’re arguing from the idea that feminism has always meant what it does to most people today: strident, pro-choice, man-hating, whatever. But as other people have pointed out, the original feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, were people the typical conservative Catholic would be very comfortable with. So it’s not a “paradoxical” use of the word to use the word “feminist” in the way I suggest—it’s more like reclaiming its original definition.

.

Anyone with a better grasp on history want to continue this thought? When did the word “feminist” first appear, and what did it originally mean?

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:44 PM (EST):

Great post and subsequent thoughts. If I were to throw a few out…a very wise woman I know, whose husband is one of the prime teachers of our marriage prep program, says that one of her pet peeves is this idea that one’s future spouse “completes you”. As she rightly says, you are an individual person who is complete and whole just as they are. Another great article I read put it this say - “Individually, my husband and I are two complete people. But together, we are one functioning unit.” We are each beautiful and complete just the way we are, but we were also designed by God for communion with each other, and especially as man and woman.
Woman are the capstone of God’s creation. He made man first, but then realized He needed to make woman too for His creation to be complete. He stopped at women! We were the finishing touch to creation! That means we are marvelous and magnificent in our own right, as women, and we have no need to be or act like men to have dignity. But we also cannot deprive men of the great dignity that they have. It is shameful how this culture seems to need to belittle men in order to make women grand. How many commercials, tv shows, and movies feature goofy inept dad who is saved by his wonderful capable wife? We are perfect the way that we are - we don’t need to put men down as if they might outshine us. Let men rise to their rightful dignity and it will only elevate woman all the more!

Posted by David on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:25 PM (EST):

What is a Catholic feminist? Just look at Mary Daly: unfortunately *that* is a Catholic feminist. Good luck combatting that, of course, but I think that ‘feminism’ is either a pretty meaningless term - Simcha’s definition is so broad that it is too broad - or it should be used to refer to a very destructive element at work in the Church, against the Church (against Christ), especially among aging female religious in the US. It’s one thing for JPII to claim to be a feminist pope: he was nonetheless clearly an anti-feminist feminist, and the anti-pope feminists aren’t going to be confused by that, although I’m sure they’re happy to have an ‘endorsement’ of the legitimacy of their feminist philosophy. But in general isn’t it best to avoid paradoxical uses of words? Or should we call people who try to portray Islam or homosexuality charitably and accurately, in light of the Church’s teachings, ‘Islamists’ or ‘homosexualists’? Similarly it seems to me that if someone wants to say the truth about the dignity of women, this doesn’t justify labeling him or her a feminist.

Posted by Barbara C. on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:13 PM (EST):

I like the ideas behind Feminists for Life…to me that is the real traditional feminist.

Posted by Barbara C. on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:08 PM (EST):

I feel like I should defend the Duggars a little bit. They do not have the authoritarian marriage that has been portrayed. Michelle worked with Jim Bob in the early years of their marriage, even when they had small children. Jim Bob freely admits that every bad decision ever made was made by him after disregarding Michelle’s opinion, which he rarely ever does now. Michelle and Jim Bob are very much a team, and they also demonstrate the complementary aspects of marriage described by JPII.

Yes, they are skirts only, but they also have very strict modesty rules for their boys as well (no shorts, no tank tops, covered chest while swimming). They have stated that the girls could cut their hair shorter if they wished, but they have not chosen to do so. While I get the impression that most of the household jobs are separated into more traditional roles, the girls and boys do learn to do each other jobs on a basic level. (And the job assignments could also be a result of the age distribution of girls/boys at this time.) They all worked on the construction of their house.

Posted by jj on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:56 AM (EST):

Sarah, I agree with you with my whole heart! However I cringe at the word ‘feminist’ and prefer to think of myself as a Lady, a princess of the Father. Hold the door open for me, but don’t turn your nose up if you come by and i’m in my grubby work clothes in the garden. Life circumstances require me to work outside the home and things i need to do in my profession require me to wear slacks for modesty but i love a skirt as much as the next girl, especially when going to see my Lord at mass or adoration. My boys are being raised to treat their mother like a Lady and that’s how ‘real men’ behave- acting out of honor using their strengths to provide protection for those God has placed in their care.

Posted by priest's wife on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:11 AM (EST):

yes- I am very much one of those impossible to categorize people- I made my husband a hot breakfast & a sack lunch this morning and he took out the trash. But I will pay the bills and he gave me the $100 a visitor (!!!) gave him at church (he said it was because I debugged the computer without going to a repairshop)- my girls will NOT be altar boys…and I made my son a prince cape so he can do ballet with his sisters while still encouraging his masculinity…but I think I am just a bit plain old Gloria Steinem type feminist—It really bugged me at Chuck E Cheese (maybe I was irritated just because I was there) that the big singing dolls were the boy mouse/rat, the boy chef, the boy monster, the boy dog, and a girl duck/chicken. Why couldn’t there be at least one more girl singing doll thing to balance a bit this gender inequality???!!! (just kidding- a little)

I think I feel a blog post coming on (I’m one of THOSE bloggers that reads a bit for inspiration in the morning and then copies the subject of favorite bloggers)

Posted by Anne Campbell on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:08 AM (EST):

JoAnna, every mother is a working mother. I hope nobody ever makes you feel like less of a good mom because you work outside the house to support your children. (Of course, if you stayed home with them and lived on welfare, there would be people who would jump down your neck for that too - we just can’t win sometimes!)

Posted by Rebecca on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:08 AM (EST):

The term “feminist” is very broad and embraces a number of different movements in different times, locales, and spirits. People outside any of the major movements tend to envision “mainstream liberal” feminism as somehow monolithic, but this is inaccurate as there are many different feminisms out there even at this present moment. Simcha’s broad definition of a feminist as “someone who feels some distress or dissatisfaction with the way women are treated—someone who agitates for change” is pretty accurate. Also, this differentiates being a feminist from being a personalist or a humanist, because the emphasis is on a particular stance taken in relation to a present socio-economic-political reality. I am a personalist at all times, but as long as the tendency to reduce or diminish women continues, I will be a feminist as well.

Posted by RMMT on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:01 AM (EST):

It seems to me that the term “feminist” should mean “for women.” I would be comfortable with that term, if it promotes “authentic femininity.” But I also don’t think it’s appropriate to be *only* “feminist” because, outside the context of our distinctly-different-in-nature-but-equal-in-dignity counterparts (men), “authentic feminism” (or any type of feminism, for that matter) doesn’t make any sense.

So I’m not sure of the correct term. Would a “masculinist-feminist” be appropriate? I’d like to use the term “humanist,” but I’m pretty sure that means something else entirely. ;-) Perhaps a “personist” would be good, but I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I favor individuals (or individualism) over families or societies.

Overall, I’d like to find a term to describe one who promotes the authentic dignity of every human person, in effort to encourage aspiration to their true nature (authentically male or female), regardless of age or physical state in life.

Great post, btw.

Posted by JoAnna on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:47 AM (EST):

Thanks for the clarification, Simcha. I sometimes don’t know how I do it, either (well, actually, I do—it’s 100% God’s help and grace. Otherwise, I’d be sunk).

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:42 AM (EST):

I meant to add that the word itself is just a piece of language to clumsily convey something I believe, in secular parlance. Once a word is invented that will convey: “All people of equal value in and of themselves; all part of the human community that we must fight hard to protect from materialism and consumption” ...I will use that word instead.

As for what I would add to the idea, I would say that I would like to see Catholics remember their call to stand in solidarity with the forgotten and discarded of society: not jsut by being prolife in their votes or praying at abortion clinics, but actually speaking and talking to everybody—from their wife to the cashier to the internet stranger—with genuine respect. No condescension. And fighting against the idea that we can use each other, wherever that idea crops up.

Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:42 AM (EST):

@JoAnna: you said:
.
“stop pretending that women can be full-time mothers and full-time careerists.”
.
This kind of rubbed me the wrong way, as I work full-time (outside the home) due to necessity, not by choice. It seems to me that you’re saying that women who work full-time outside the home aren’t good mothers.
.
(me talking now:)
.
I was thinking more of the pressure that mainstream liberal feminists put on women, basically saying, “You can do both and not have to make any compromises.” You will even hear that women MUST do both—that a woman with children owes it to society and to her daughters to show that we can do exactly the same job as men can do in a career without making any type of meaningful sacrifice in family life. I don’t mean this as an insult to working women, whether they choose to work or need to work—I just think it’s a matter of logistics.
.
I mean, I know some stay-at-home moms who neglect their kids, and some moms with full-time careers who are excellent, devoted mothers. But the “you can have it all” propaganda is a disservice to women.
.
Heck, I work only part-time, and have to make compromises with my family so that I can get my work done. There just aren’t enough hours in the day to do both full time as well as I could if I were only doing one. So, I, for one, salute you, and I hope you constantly hear, “I don’t know how you do it!” Working moms amaze me.

Another commenter, quoting Simcha, wrote, “Stop assuming that all women are meant to bear child after child no matter what,” and then responded,

“Wow, Ms. Fisher. Have any of these people ever actually read Humanae Vitae, despite thinking that they’re ‘faithful Catholics’”?

Where in _Humanae Vitae_, or any other authentic Catholic document are Catholics told that “all women are to bear child after child, no matter what?”

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, my grandfather had no work coming in, and he and my grandmother could barely afford to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table for their three children. To bring in needed cash, the children’s bedroom furniture was set up in the attic, and their vacated bedrooms were rented out to paying boarders. My grandparents slept in separate bedrooms, and there was a five-year gap between the births of my uncle and his next younger sister.

Undoubtedly, at that time, as today, there were people in the pews pointing at my grandparents’ family and whispering, “Look at that! Only three children, and suddenly they stop! Hmph! And they call themselves ‘faithful Catholics’, too. What nerve!”

Ironic, isn’t it? In God’s sight, my grandparents as well as many other couples today, who for grave reasons, resort to NFP or other lawful methods to space births, are doing well, while those who point and judge them for without knowing the full circumstances, are out-of-line!

And they point is, unless we have all the inside information, we can never know the full circumstances of another fertility track record. Even to *notice* how many children another couple has or doesn’t have puts you right around the corner from a sin of rash judgement and / or detraction.

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:35 AM (EST):

I use feminist as a label in the same way I do “special needs” for my son. It gets the attention necessary, but nobody else can use it to tell me what that means.

To me, calling myself a feminist is a political act that needs to be taken, for many reasons, including the fact that it takes back the idea of equality from the abortion-mongers.

I use the word judiciously, but without shame. At the point I use it to self-identify I hope that I have already had a chance to witness with my life the Catholicism that I love.

Further, modern feminism aligns itself with fighting oppression of all people, and so do I.

It is a useful political label that is based in a theological and philosophical foundation. Like most political labels, it cannot encompass everything, and must be used in dynamic engagement with the world.

Posted by Keith Joseph on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:34 AM (EST):

I have to admit, I’m afraid of entering this discussion - and not for anything in particular that has been written by anyone here! Perhaps it is due to my still recent experience in college that the term “feminism” still bears unhealthy connotations. In particular, it brings to mind the image of woman standing apart, of division. This blog, on the other hand, seems to adress a far more pure femininity that acknowledges the need for unity.

When I go into high schools and ask the guys what it means to be a man, they readily reply, “to provide and protect”. But, when I ask the ladies what it means to be a woman, no two answers are the same. Now, I understand the impulse to try to reclaim a term such as feminist. This is because when a woman identifies herself as a feminist, she seems to claim to be more of a woman, more interested in women. At this stage I think fighting for the label is irrelevant. We shouldn’t be fighting to reclaim a term, we should be fighting to reclaim Christian femininity, together.

Posted by jeni on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:30 AM (EST):

bravo :)

Posted by Laura on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:25 AM (EST):

In her book, “What our Mother’s Didn’t Tell Us,” (an excellent read), Danielle Crittenden makes the argument that most women today ARE feminists, though we may be loathe to use that label, given what we find to be culturally acceptable today.

Posted by Eileen on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:21 AM (EST):

I don’t know if I’m a feminist because I’m not sure I embrace the role every woman chooses for herself. I look at the Duggars and I think, “Cut your hair or get out of the kitchen - it’s unsanitary, for goodness sake!” I’m uncomfortable around women who are automatically submissive to men. If I were a true feminist, I could embrace their pants-free, long hair calling.

However, I pay all the bills in our house, see that the lawn is mowed and cars are maintained. I believe in equal pay for equal work. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a couple where the dad stays home and the mom works, even though (just like long hair and no pants) it’s a choice that is not for me and my husband. For some reason I can view that modern couple as making choices, while I secretly believe that the ultra traditional long hair no pants is a prison sentence at the very least, or at worst, a plot by men to keep women in their place.

It’s an interesting question and I’m trying to be more tolerant and accepting of everywoman’s choice.

Posted by JoAnna on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:21 AM (EST):

“stop pretending that women can be full-time mothers and full-time careerists.”

This kind of rubbed me the wrong way, as I work full-time (outside the home) due to necessity, not by choice. It seems to me that you’re saying that women who work full-time outside the home aren’t good mothers.

Posted by Kristine on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:18 AM (EST):

I like “feminine genius.” Or just plain old “genius” works, too. ;)

Posted by Emily on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:14 AM (EST):

Excellent, Simcha. I sport the bumper sticker “Real Feminists Don’t Kill Babies” on my car and have received really positive feedback from complete strangers who especially appreciate the idea of true feminism. We need to keep this word in use and reclaim it as Catholic Christian women. I do consider myself a feminist in many ways, currently a careerwoman, but looking forward to a day when I may have a family of my own and can devote my entire self to them.

Posted by ARM on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:12 AM (EST):

I’m one of those who’s doubtful about the possibility (or value) of appropriating terms like “feminism.” I understand the “new feminists” argue that etymologically and properly “feminism” ought to mean something like the position you describe here. But that doesn’t make much sense to me given that the term in question is the name of an ideology. Trying to redefine such words smacks of Humpty-Dumptyism: “When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” For comparison, imagine a person declaring himself a “new communist” and then preaching the value of private ownership and private philanthropy. When challenged, he could say, “Ah, but real community among human beings is better served by this than by totalitarian redistribution.” He might be right in terms of etymology, but his insistence on using the word would produce only confusion.

Posted by Calah on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:08 AM (EST):

Oh, Simcha, well done as always. I particularly like your last point; the most dangerous part of feminism, in my opinion, is that for the last several decades we have set ourselves up in perpetual victim-hood. It is time to stop pointing out what needs to be done for us so that we can finally be happy, or fulfilled, or equal, or whatever, and decide what we can do for ourselves that will make us good. Not equal! Not enfranchised! Just plain good.

Posted by J H on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:08 AM (EST):

Maybe the decision to stay home should be based on what is best for the children.

Posted by Karen on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:05 AM (EST):

What always boggles my mind about traditional feminists is that they are aggravated by a woman’s decision to stay home with her kids rather than work outside the home. I always thought feminism was about expanding, not limiting, choices for women. I chose to stay home with my kids, after careful thought and consideration. It was the right thing for our family.
.
My husband has always said that the decision of who stays home—the husband or wife—should be based on economics. Who earns more? Who has more earning potential? For instance, my brother in law has a degree in journalism and history. His wife had a degree in computer science. When they married, she was earning way more than he was, and had the potential to earn even more if she stayed in her field. He insisted she stay home with the children they were planning to raise, and she agreed, because he refused to marry her otherwise. He refused to expand his thinking outside of the traditional, husband works outside the home, wife stays at home, meme.
.
That decision, unfortunately, cascaded into financial ruin and resentment (on both sides) and bitterness, and finally separation.
.
My husband’s degree and level of education means he can earn way more than I can, with my BA in psychology and a MA in English. So it was kind of a no-brainer. But if the situation were reversed, I’d be the one working outside the home, he’d be home with the kids, homeschooling and keeping up the house while I’m at work. And he’d be fine with that. I think he’s a feminist in the finest sense of the term. And he’s Catholic, too!

Posted by Christina on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:02 AM (EST):

“They really don’t “need a man to be happy.” This is not to denigrate men at all, however. It’s just that assuming that we should feel that we’re “nothing” without a boyfriend, or that a relationship with the opposite sex is something that we “need” is not something that I think is healthy.”

I think there is a difference between not “needing a man” as in “not needing to be in a physical relationship with a man” and “not needing men in one’s life.” Women and men do need each other because we are complements. The women in religious life do have men in their lives; brothers, fathers, nephews, priests, monks, friends. These are necessary relationships for the fullness of the individual person and the health of the community as a whole.

Posted by Jen on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:02 AM (EST):

Mrs Bob Cratchit
“I like all of the stuff that comes with being a woman. I can be dolled up or I can relax and be comfortable, without feeling like I am enticing a man (deal with your own sexual sins).”

ha! Thanks! That was awesome!! I totally agree. Deal with your own sexual sins. I’m dressed just fine, thank you very much!

Posted by J H on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:01 AM (EST):

In regards to the “settling down” commentator, I might disagree, or be open to more discussion. My husband has very “old fashioned” ideas and takes seriously the charge to “go forth and multiply” in the sense that he sees it as our duty to be open to and raise children who will love and serve God. This isn’t an afterthought, but our purpose for being. While it’s obviously not everyone’s call, when lots of my single friends reject suitors because of the way that they wear their socks, I wonder if they take this charge seriously.

I guess I don’t think that “settling down” really has anything to do with feminism. Especially since any Catholic “ism” is to follow God’s call for each individual person, using his or her gifts to their fullest extent.

Posted by Jen on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:59 AM (EST):

Great thoughts.

Sarah, thank you for your words as well. While we don’t “need” men to define us, we DO need them in terms of complimentary. JPII reminds us that we are equal, though different.

What I find challenging is being single at 40 and not being defined as a wife and mother in the usual sense. What, then, does it mean to be woman? I don’t have a natural complimentary partner. I can be a spiritual mother, and I am, but this question drives me to study more about what exactly does it mean to be “feminine”?

Not only does the world get it wrong, but the Church is still struggling with this. Sexism is alive and well in the Catholic Church. In three very well known Catholic organizations/institutions I have seen women treated with contempt: Paid less than the people under them (who are male), foul and degrading language during reviews and a male colleague getting away with all kinds of lapses in responsibility while the woman is needled for little things. An all male team at ministry events…I’ve worked for men who say the most outrageous things to me in the Church-when I’m leading with a feminine authority I was taken to task for not being Authoritarian. I’m not built that way and I won’t lead that way.

There is so much that women bring to the business and Church world that is undervalued. For the growing number of women who aren’t getting married and are trying to figure out how to be both fully feminine and be credible in the work/ministry I think we have an opportunity to examine this issue: How did God make us and how can we contribute all that we uniquely are to the world?

Posted by Jen Popiel on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:53 AM (EST):

You may already know that I consider myself a feminist and think that it’s important for women to seize the idea of feminism, of agitating for true equality (not sameness) and change that is necessary. Feminism is important because it doesn’t think it’s already been accomplished and, as Catholics, feminists have important voices to add to debates about lifestyles, gender roles, and public policy (just to name a few).

Posted by mrs. bob cratchit on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:42 AM (EST):

You made excellent points. In ‘Women of Grace’ we are learning authentic femininity. Women are mothers whether physical or spiritual. We have a role to bring souls into God’s kingdom through prayer. I am pro-life, pro-child, pro-family. I love my role and my large family (even my 2 year old), and don’t desire to add more by becoming a priest or advocating for that to happen. We have enough to deal with in society and it’s nice to belong to a Church that says we can be happy with who we were created to be. I like all of the stuff that comes with being a woman. I can be dolled up or I can relax and be comfortable, without feeling like I am enticing a man (deal with your own sexual sins). I love being a woman and feel like if I emulate My Mother, Mary, then how can I go wrong????

Posted by Kathleen@so much to say on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:41 AM (EST):

What a terrific, terrific post. I just wish that it was possible to share this attitude w/o people tuning out b/c of preconceived notions of “Catholic.”

Posted by Sarah on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:37 AM (EST):

I think using the term feminist is loaded, because of the history of that word, and the people who call themselves feminists, who as you said, “would recoil in horror” at you calling yourself one. I know many liberal feminists, because I used to be one, who would absolutely, hands down tell you that NO ONE who does not support abortion on demand can call themselves a feminist. In most of the feminist circles of society today, that is the belief. Feminists for Life *is* a fringe group, and frankly, not taken seriously by any of the mainstream feminist groups. I only know this because I used to be on all of their mailing lists (EMILY’s List, NARAL, NOW, etc.)

There are also several waves of feminism. I would be inclined to align myself with the “wave” of feminism that included the suffragettes, all of whom were, pro-life.

My husband and I are pretty traditional in terms of gender, but we work together on everything that needs to be done. I stay at home, but he spends a LOT of time with our daughter evenings and weekends. He does almost all the night-time parenting so I can get more sleep. He pays the bills, but only because I am far too forgetful and scatter-brained to remember all of them.

I think one of the ways that the Church, and Catholic families, can live the truth of what “feminine genius” really is (I prefer that term to feminism), is through the witness of inter-dependence. No human person was born into, raised in, or exists in a vacuum. A large part of the feminist movement was this wrong-headed assertion that men are completely arbitrary and not necessary to women or the world. What do we have as a result of that? A society where there are more women and children in poverty than ever before, where young men are becoming violent and lashing out at younger and younger ages, where whole demographics are being raised without a single stable male in their orbit.

Women and men need each other in order to raise strong families (as research has shown over and over, that children from stable two parent families do better on every possible outcome than children in single parent families). Women and men need each other because the Creator designed us that way.

Of course it’s better now that we can open bank accounts, and pay the bills, and wear pants, and play soccer, and all of those things we now have that we didn’t 100 years ago. But what’s ironic (or at least would be to most feminists) is that the devout Catholic fathers of large families that I know, are the most involved fathers that I know. It’s because they see their vocation as husband and father, the same way that we women see ours as wives and mothers.
Our wider culture has lost its sense of vocation, so instead of seeing marriage and family as the most important thing, it’s seen as an appendage to our careers. I’m not saying that either men or women shouldn’t have careers if they really want them, but what I’m saying is that if the career is seen as primarily a way of supporting the family, but that the family is the most important thing, then both men and women are more likely to cooperate, rather than view marriage as some kind of competition that only one person can win.

Posted by Anne Campbell on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:35 AM (EST):

Brava, Simcha! “Feminist” is not a dirty word, and sometimes people forget that there’s a great diversity in the people who call themselves such. Not all feminists are pro-abortion, for example, and not all of us think that it’s a “waste” for women to choose to stay home with their children.

I call myself a feminist because I believe that all women should have freedom and equality, end of story. Or as they say, “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

Posted by Kristen on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:09 AM (EST):

My own experience is similar. I would like to say that anyone pressuring a woman (or a man) to “settle down” and “get married” is doing that person and the world a great disservice. The church also recognizes a call to the single life as a vocation. It’s wildly unpopular in today’s Church where we tend to group unmarried young people as immoral regardless of their personal chastity and virginity and glorifies married families with at least 2 (if not more children). We forget that God calls us all to different lives, some as married parents of 10, some as married couples not to be blessed with children, some to the religious life and some to the single life. Not one is better than the other, I think once we begin to understand and believe that truth, we will cease to need labels such as “feminist.”

Posted by Wsquared on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:05 AM (EST):

“Stop assuming that all women are meant to bear child after child no matter what.”

Wow, Ms. Fisher. Have any of these people ever actually read Humanae Vitae, despite thinking that they’re “faithful Catholics”?

“and stop pretending that if women just tried a little harder, men would be happy all the time.”

I am ever so glad that our Pre-Cana class put this out there for everyone: never put something less than God before God, which means that we don’t put our spouses before God, either—we are never to expect our spouses to fill needs and desires that only God can.

“Women, and this includes Catholic women, need to realize they are precious creatures of God. They have value and worth even without a man in their lives! Wow, what a concept.”

Theresa, indeed. If anything, we Catholics should be good at this: look at all of those women who have religious vocations, or who do not marry because God does mean them for some other purpose. They really don’t “need a man to be happy.” This is not to denigrate men at all, however. It’s just that assuming that we should feel that we’re “nothing” without a boyfriend, or that a relationship with the opposite sex is something that we “need” is not something that I think is healthy. In short, I like the Catholic view for being balanced: we should understand that marriage is to be cherished and respected, but that not everyone is called to it, and not being called to it doesn’t make one “weird.”

Posted by Zilla on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:02 AM (EST):

I reject the cultural marxism of feminism, and there IS a better word for people like us, the word is Femininican. Read what that means here:
http://zillablog.marezilla.com/2010/12/femininican.html

Posted by Amy on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:53 AM (EST):

Great words of wisdom that I wish I would have read years ago. My husband and I had a rough start that involved much of what the “world” described as good and normal. 10 kids and years of suffering later I think we may be on the right road :) even if I have had to hear “you don’t work, right?” for the last 19 years.

Posted by Rachel on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:52 AM (EST):

I was taken to task at one point in my life for using the ‘F’ word - “feminist”. I used it as an encouragement to other women to learn natural family planning, NFP. I was quoted as saying it was the ‘most feminist thing you could do’.

I was saying that it was only when I learned NFP that I learned exactly what my body did and how and what it was capable of doing; having babies or not based on natural cycles. I didn’t learn any of that in health class, just info on how to stop them coming using chemicals and other unnatural means without any info on how it all happened.

My source for using the word came from our own dear Blessed John Paul II who talked often about the feminist genius and encouraging all of us to discover what we are capable of as women within God’s great plan and design. The woman believing being a Catholic feminist was impossible was taken aback.

There is much we can do as women when we allow ourselves to discover what God wants and not demand what we want. For this feminist, my plan was a life spent traveling far from a home, husband and any children.

Ha! God’s much better plan has been an amazing husband, 11 children but yes, even some travel which has included to Rome, Ireland and Belgium!

Posted by Theresa on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:29 AM (EST):

Here is why I call myself a Catholic feminist…I waited for a good guy to come along who was worth marrying. That means I was 28 (gasp) when I got married. I felt a lot of pressure from some family members to just “settle down” and heard lots of “But isn’t your biological clock ticking? You’d better find somebody soon.” Now my daughter is experiencing the same thing, but she has not found a guy worth marrying yet and I will be the last one on earth to give her any pressure about getting married. Women, and this includes Catholic women, need to realize they are precious creatures of God. They have value and worth even without a man in their lives! Wow, what a concept.

Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:25 AM (EST):

I am a Catholic who celebrates diversity: the differences between men and women, the special roles, talents, and gifts that each brings to human social life. Each vitally important, each of immense dignity and worth in the sight of God. Neither to be denigrated, mocked, or put down for any reason.

_Vive la difference!_

Posted by J H on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:18 AM (EST):

Great great commentary. You’ve enunciated what I’ve felt for a long time. Good job. Truly.

Posted by Lynn on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:08 AM (EST):

I LOVE your expanded definition, but I don’t know if “feminist” is the right word to attach to it, since there is already so much baggage there.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.